Discussion Title: Should the ecological crisis we are facing become our collective and singular focus?

1. The ecological crisis Earth is facing should become the collective and singular focus of society.
1.1. Pro: With no ecosystems services, that is, clean water, clean air, clean food and biological sequestration of carbon dioxide we have no way of supporting human life. When there is no civilisation there is no economy or culture.
1.2. Con: According to the traditions of the monotheistic religions, we need a period of total destruction to produce "[The Rapture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)" when those who love God \(Jesus or [Allah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_eschatology)\) go to Heaven while everybody else goes to Hell. Therefore, we shouldn't avert ecological collapse - we should accelerate it.
1.2.1. Con: There is the potential to use the inherited religious structures to address the ecological crisis. For instance, Pope Francis, issued an Encyclical, '[Care for our Common Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si%27#Environmentalism),' which is a radical ecological manifesto. Catholics are now told to be good stewards of the Earth. We can actually use religious faith as a tool for saving the environment.
1.3. Pro: The whole world needs to focus on this. We are in the same boat - when one part of the world messes it up, we all suffer.
1.3.1. Con: That may not be true for the world as a whole. [For instance](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/global-warming-who-loses-and-who-wins/305698/), Russia, which has a somewhat cold and inhospitable climate, may actually benefit greatly from a few degrees of warming, while Africa and India would suffer terribly.
1.4. Con: Focussing on a single issue it not the way to effectively tackle climate change.
1.4.1. Pro: Focusing on the ecological crisis explicitly is too overwhelming for many to contemplate, and the environmental movement has already been stigmatized and is unlikely to convert more to its "side". The ecological crisis is an outcome with clear root causes in consumerism, finance driven economies that require growth to survive, fossil fuel and resource intensive energy and transportation infrastructure and short termism in agriculture.
1.4.2. Pro: Framing it as an ecological crisis inadvertently reinforces the false dichotomy between the social and the ecological sphere. The crisis is 'socio-ecological' and requires the capacity for deep systems-thinking and systems-seeing. With [Hawken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hawken)'s '[Project Drawdown](http://www.drawdown.org/)', there are actions we know we should take but very little has been achieved in terms of identifying the socio-cultural steps capable of driving the Socio-technical transitions we need to see.
1.4.2.1. Con: Of course, everything is interlinked, but we still need to be able to separate and compartmentalize ideas and concepts. To say that differentiating between the social and ecological is a "false dichotomy" makes it more difficult to conceive of a solution path.
1.4.3. Pro: Our systems currently do not support singular focus for a singular issue. Our focus should be on reforming the political system that is unresponsive to science.
1.5. Con: Focussing on climate change will come at too great a cost to our societal norms.
1.5.1. Pro: Proposing that the ecological crisis should become our singular goal totally goes against the individual freedoms that are the basis of modern civilization. What's good about our culture is that everyone can do their own thing. To make ecology our focus is a kind of eco-fascism, even if it does mean we may go extinct otherwise.
1.5.1.1. Pro: If we were to confront the ecological crisis collectively, we would probably have to do things like mandate a global reduction in birth rates to bring down population, and also have a severe restriction or even a moratorium on meat-eating. That we would restrict people from having kids or stop them from eating meat is like Stalinism or Mao-ism. Our individual freedoms are sacrosanct and people need to be free to do whatever they want that doesn't immediately hurt other people.
1.5.1.2. Con: The current ideology and conception of personal freedom is something that only developed in the last centuries. We now don't separate personal freedom from self-indulgence. In fact, we might find ourselves more truly free if the basis of our freedom was our shared responsibility for the health of the Earth and the future of our human family.
1.5.2. Pro: When we define the crisis facing our world exclusively as "ecological", we risk paving the way for "solutions" such as geoengineering that may run counter to the ideals of, for example, indigenous peoples. If the problem is merely "ecological", the technocrats will be happy to "fix" it without addressing the deeper problems. If we don't want a dystopia we should be careful to define the ecological problem holistically and address the root causes of our predicament.
1.6. Pro: Focusing on this impending crisis will bring additional benefits.
1.6.1. Pro: Our civilization has hyper-focused on technological and material progress at the expense of our connection to the Earth and and the natural world. By focusing on the ecological crisis, we will come back into balance and develop more empathy and compassion as a species.
1.6.2. Pro: For the human community to address the ecological crisis, we will probably have to overcome aspects of the current Capitalist system and make deep changes in our social structure. Wealth will have to be shared for more equitably, for instance. Corporations will have to pursue social and environmental goals not just financial ones. This, in itself, is a reason we should rally around this cause.
1.6.2.1. Con: Our current form of Capitalism is the greatest engine for innovation and creativity that the world has [ever seen](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10412499/The-world-has-never-had-it-so-good-thanks-partly-to-capitalism.html). It is natural and necessary that this system creates "winners" and "losers." While it is unfortunate it has had a destructive impact on the Biosphere, this is also an example of its incredible dynamism. Future innovation will address its excesses, but restricting or superseding elements of Capitalism would be totally wrong.
1.6.2.2. Pro: The ecological crisis may force a necessary reckoning. For instance, the social ecologist [Murray Bookchin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin) [argued](https://zcomm.org/zquotes/the-private-ownership-of-the-planet-by-elite-strata-must-be-brought-to-an-end-if-we-are-to-survive-th-by-murray-bookchin/): "The private ownership of the planet by elite strata must be brought to an end if we are to survive the afflictions it has imposed on the biotic world, particularly as a result of a society structured around limitless growth." As an alternative, we must establish "a fully participatory society literally free of privilege and domination," totally transforming "our social relations."
1.6.2.3. Pro: To solve the crisis the media, politicians and education systems could address the dire need to transition from capitalism and move towards a global resource based economy. Taking care of the planet and all of it's species would be inherently part of such system, and promote and reward such more sane and compassionate behaviours.
1.7. Pro: The impending ecological crisis is our most pressing threat, and we must act on it now.
1.7.1. Pro: Every year there are more and more devastating natural catastrophes, like wildfires, floods, droughts.
1.7.1.1. Pro: For example, the 2018 fire in [Greece](https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/jul/25/how-the-fires-in-mati-greece-spread-a-visual-guide) killed over 80 people, and devastated whole villages.
1.7.2. Con: We face other existential threats, such as [nuclear war](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/13/nuclear-policy-review-war-risk) or the rise of an evil [Artificial Intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence), that need to be equally prioritized.
1.7.3. Pro: Fifty years ago was the best time, but now is still a better time than later, given the precariousness and [time-sensitiveness](http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/content/why-we-need-act-now) of the crisis.
1.7.4. Pro: We know that we are extremely creative and resilient as a species. If we were to make rapid changes to our industry, energy, and farming practices, we could sequester massive amounts of carbon dioxide and avert the worst consequences of runaway warming.
1.7.4.1. Pro: There are past examples when mass societies came together to defeat a common threat: For instance, after the [Pearl Harbor attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#American_response), the US shifted all its factories to wartime production within a few months and taxed the wealthy at [over 90%](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-would-you-feel-about-a-94-tax-rate/). Almost everyone agreed to join the war effort to defeat the Axis powers. Confronting the ecological crisis could become a global focus in the same way.
1.7.4.2. Con: Many climate scientists say that the US needs to reduce our annual CO2 emissions by [approximately 8% annually](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/emissions-target-fact-sheet.pdf). And we would have to do that while converting to renewable energy and regenerative farming. That is a totally unrealistic and impossible goal. Better not to try.
1.7.4.3. Pro: We are very near a "[Solar Singularity](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-singularity-2017-update-ev-autonomous-energy-storage)," where solar energy becomes cheaper to produce than fossil fuels. We are also developing [new batteries](https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air) to store renewable energy and the "[Internet of Energy](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/internet-energy-ioe.asp)" that allows energy to be allocated efficiently. The "[Fourth Industrial Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution#Fourth_Industrial_Revolution)" is underway and can save the planet, if we all support it.
1.7.5. Pro: The combination of species extinction, ocean acidification, and the "[Methane Time Bomb](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb)" under the Arctic means humanity faces an immediate existential threat that could lead to our extinction within this century. In the [Permian Mass Extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event), 83% of all life went extinct. Therefore, we should overcome political, economic, and ideological divisions to address this now, collectively.
1.7.5.1. Con: Even an event that causes 83% of genera to go extinct is unlikely to cause our species to face extinction, as we are among the most adaptable species in the planet's history.
1.7.5.2. Con: Per the linked "methane time bomb" article, the projected damage from arctic warming is an estimated $60 trillion. That's a lot of damage, but vastly less than human extinction.
1.7.6. Con: The science on climate change is still immature. We don't know for a fact that we are causing accelerated warming, and mass extinctions are a part of nature. Therefore, acting in an alarmist manner or prioritizing this above all other areas is inappropriate.
1.7.6.1. Pro: Scientists often prove to be wrong eventually in the claims they make. For instance, Newtonian physics has now been superseded by [quantum physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). "[Peak Oil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms)" theorists of twenty years ago turned out to be too alarmist. They believed we would be running out of fuel already. So it doesn't make sense to single-mindedly focus on the ecological crisis, as scientists may have over-estimated it, and alarmists may be using it for their own purposes.
1.7.6.1.1. Con: There is a confusion here between theory and the modelling and observation of climate trends. In any case with something so devastating the precautionary principle should rule
1.7.6.2. Con: The vast preponderance of scientists are sounding the alarm that we have radically overshot our ecological limits. It is estimated that up to [150 or more](https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly) species go extinct per day, out of an estimated [8.7 million](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm) total species on Earth. The current estimate is around [4 degrees](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29) Celsius warmer by 2100, but this could be a huge under-estimate due to feedback loops. We need to act now!
1.7.7. Con: It is already too late to prevent catastrophic climate change.
1.7.7.1. Con: -> See 1.7.4.1.
1.7.7.2. Con: It may be too late to prevent all casastrophical consequences. But doing nothing is worse because the impact will be greater on our lifestyle \(or just life if it goes on\).
1.7.7.3. Pro: The fossil fuel interests have taken total control of the [US](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/12/big-oil-white-house-century-of-influence) and [Russian](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/16/europe/russia-global-reach-intl/index.html) governments. They stand to make [vast amounts](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/can-shell-afford-to-drill-for-oil-in-the-arctic) by drilling in the Arctic and nothing will stop them - even though many ecologists say these energy reserves should be called "stranded assets" as extracting them will kill the planet. There is no way to stop such a powerful machine, based in the force of human greed. Therefore, there is nothing we can do, individually or collectively.
1.7.7.3.1. Con: The people driving this engine of destruction are still human beings with families, and it should be possible to reason with them. Money won't mean anything if the Earth is destroyed.
1.7.7.4. Pro: It is already too late to do anything, so we might as well continue with our normal lives, focusing on many different areas like sports and business, because the problem is too intractable and it is basically hopeless.
1.7.7.4.1. Con: We actually don't know that is too late to do anything. Although the situation seems dire, if we acted quickly we might be able to change the situation and avoid a mass die-off. [For instance](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/), we can plant billions of trees, paint the rooftops of our cities white, build huge greenhouses, and turn a percentage of the ocean into kelp farms which absorb masses of CO2. The choice may still be ours - but we can't wait any longer to act.
1.7.7.5. Pro: With all the different countries around the world and varying cultures and ideologies, we will never be able to unify the world behind a concerted drive to deal with the ecological crisis. Therefore we shouldn't try.
1.7.7.5.1. Con: We can never know what is possible until we attempt to do something. In fact, many [impossible things](https://theconversation.com/saving-the-ozone-layer-why-the-montreal-protocol-worked-9249) have happened in the past. We may have more power than we know, and the people of the world may be ready for a big change.
1.8. Con: Technology will resolve the ecological crisis without us focusing on it.
1.8.1. Con: The ecological crisis is caused by social problems, which cannot be solved with technology \(alone\).
1.8.2. Pro: Technology is evolving so quickly that it will be able to address the ecological mega-crisis without requiring a large-scale movement of civil society. We may soon have "nanobots" that can [clean our oceans](https://www.sciencealert.com/graphene-based-nanobots-could-clean-up-the-metal-from-our-oceans). Geo-engineering - for instance, putting [sulfur particles in the atmosphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_\(climate_engineering\)) to create "global dimming" - is also an option. We just need to buy time for technology to evolve a little more.
1.8.2.1. Con: Often, technology promises a lot more than it delivers. Also, we seem to be caught in a "progress trap" where each new layer of technology - often built to deal with problems created by earlier technologies - has new unforeseen negative consequences. For instance, nobody imagined, in the 1920s, that plastics would infiltrate every eco-system, wrecking havoc. We don't know what "nanobots" or "geo-engineering" might do to the Earth in the future - but it could be horrifying.
1.8.2.2. Pro: We have seen [rapid progress](https://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/) over the last centuries, where more and more people are now living longer and more comfortable lives. The average person with a cell phone has more power to learn and communicate than the wealthiest and most powerful person did 30 years ago. Progress is growing exponentially. We will find the technological solutions to global warming, species extinction, etcetera. We shouldn't worry about it excessively.
1.8.3. Pro: At the moment, green energy is only just becoming economic. According to [some economists](http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/the-high-cost-being-green) Spain's unemployment problems are directly linked to green tech. With $8 billion government subsidies yearly, and an estimated 2.2 jobs lost for every "green" job created. Instead of implementing bad tech today, we ought improve technology so that we have a more viable solution tomorrow.